[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Todd and all,

  Ok thank you for the Heads-up Todd!  I look forward to you posting
that when you are ready.

  BTW though, as you may know mods to standard Bind v8.x and
9.0 will nicely accomplish a Shared Root or Multi Root approach
without the concern of collisions...

todd glassey wrote:

> Jeff and all - the Internet-Draft on the new Root Zone protocol is about
> ready to fly. I got about 99% of it done, and want to re-read it today and
> make sure I don't sound any more like a fool than I am. Should be submitted
> later today.
>
> Todd
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 6:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
>
> > Todd and all,
> >
> >   Thanks anyway Todd, I already received one via E-Mail.  And
> > you already have my E-Mail address.  So in the future you can
> > forward any such letters to me via my E-Mail address...
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff - The IAB presented a RFC to the IETF and it should have been an
> I-D as
> > > far as I can tell as well since they short circuited the response model
> by
> > > not submitting their work as though it were a normal submission. If you
> are
> > > interested in the letter I sent to the IAB and others this morning, send
> me
> > > your address and I will send you back a copy.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 6:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > >
> > > > Todd and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> > > >
> > > > todd glassey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:13 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > > > >
> > > > > > Todd and all stakeholders interested parties,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > todd glassey wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron may be right about the South African Governments Intent, but
> it
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > makes no difference to the bigger picture. The concept of the
> Global
> > > > > > > Internet and a One Earth Network is still 20-50 years away I
> think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all
> > > practical
> > > > > > purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
> > > > > > sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
> > > > > > network connection.  But they are fast disappearing.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I think its more that what is here is a one root network.
> > > >
> > > >   Well according the the ICANN BOD and staff that seems to be
> > > > true and how they would like it to remain.  The facts are though
> > > > that in Asia for instance, other Root networks are in place and
> > > > expanding.  This shall continue.  The EU as well is in the
> > > > planning stages of developing their own Root structure as
> > > > well as was recently announced.  Hence, as I originally said,
> > > > "The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all
> practical
> > > >  purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
> > > >  sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
> > > >  network connection.  But they are fast disappearing."
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And is
> > > > > > > more political and based in the need for Countries to enforce
> their
> > > > > > > boundaries than in technologies. The other mitigating factor is
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > > persona that ICANN puts forth, especially with all the
> in-fighting
> > > going
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > visibly below it, is that the proposed "management of the
> Internet"
> > > is
> > > > > > > equally incompetent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The present form of "management of the Internet" that this ICANN
> > > > > > BoD and staff are attempting to impose is indeed incompetent, and
> is
> > > also
> > > > > > not following the White Paper and the MoU.
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is no real reason for anyone to have to buy into the ICANN
> > > > > philosophy. Anyone that would operate their own root can do this.
> > > >
> > > >   Exactly my original point.  And a philosophy that IENGroup reached
> > > > some 3 years ago now...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron, its not that the one-world idea is bad, its just that as a
> > > race, we
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > a global culture are not ready yet for this love-peace-knowledge
> > > picture
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the Internet. Until organizations like the UN willing accept the
> > > > > > > responsibility for global peace and the creation of a Terran
> Bill of
> > > > > Rights
> > > > > > > or a definition of the Human Birthright here on Earth of which
> this
> > > > > Internet
> > > > > > > is an integral part, we will have these problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The UN plays a role, all be it an important one, but still only
> a
> > > role.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes that's my point. WIPO is not enough.
> > > >
> > > >   Exactly!  The WTO seems to also be in some trouble as you
> > > > may be aware, and loosing favor amongst a host of nations.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To that end I propose that the only smart thing to do is to not
> > > fight
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > establishment's and let them go onward with compartmentalizing
> and
> > > > > creating
> > > > > > > eBorders from the Internet's networking model. To do this will
> > > really
> > > > > piss
> > > > > > > ICANN off since it means that they failed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The present ICANN BOD and staff have already basically admitted
> that
> > > > > > they have failed with Lynn's proposed restructure ideas, which
> seem to
> > > > > > change radically with almost each passing day...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, well when you are grasping at straws...
> > > >
> > > >   ROFLMAO!  How true!  >;)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not that their vision was wrong
> > > > > > > individually, but that collectively they couldn't get their act
> > > > > together,
> > > > > > > and so now others will step in and take over as with what SA is
> > > > > proposing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Indeed true..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My personal feeling is that it will take the restructuring of
> layer
> > > two
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > three to accommodate but this solves many mechanical issues that
> > > ICANN
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > unable to address - the technology is simple...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     1)    If a Root Zone based query/response model is erected
> atop
> > > DNS
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > we will have capability for a truly interoperable
> infrastructure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Yes, and this can be several levels deep.  BTW, this is already
> > > underway
> > > > > > in various forms...
> > > > >
> > > > > Most of them leave the ICANN as the single root operator though and
> > > thats
> > > > > where I decouple form the mainstream techie line at this time. The
> one
> > > root
> > > > > concept is the problem not the answer.
> > > >
> > > >   Very much agreed.  It is not even technically sound in the present
> > > > geo-economic trade environment today...  And as time passes
> > > > the single Root structure becomes less viable.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     2)    If the layer-2/layer-3 Internet is compartmentalized
> into
> > > > > > > definable areas and eBorders are allowed to become a reality,
> then
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > a NAT style gateway between each eBorderd DNS Tree could have
> its
> > > own
> > > > > > > individual address space...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Also true, and also underway..
> > > > >
> > > > > yes and this is being done pretty much on the QT as well. But it
> does
> > > > > formally establish eBorders for the Internet and have them intersect
> at
> > > > > major switching centers.
> > > >
> > > >   Well not really so much on the QT, but not all that visible on
> ICANN's
> > > > radar screen, as it should be..  But when the ICANN BoD and especially
> > > > the ICANN staff purposefully ignores or actively thwarts or resists
> > > > reality, it harms everyone...  That is just plain silliness...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     3)    The creation of a flattened "global Area" in the area
> > > > > constrained
> > > > > > > by #1 and #2 gives us global network interoperability...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So lets see:    #1 solves the need for more domain names... Each
> DNS
> > > > > Zone
> > > > > > > can have its own unique set of TLD's; #2 solves the availability
> of
> > > IP
> > > > > > > Addresses since each eBordered zone would have its own IPv4
> space
> > > and
> > > > > talk
> > > > > > > to the global Internet Interconnect though a well-knows set of
> > > > > addresses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What more do we need?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Todd
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > > > > > > To: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 1:10 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good morning, Eric,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eric wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Dear Ron,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Ron Sherwood wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Dear fellow at-largers:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>     Today's report on the political battle over .za is copied
> > > below.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>     The claim that the majority of South Africans do not have
> > > access
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the Internet, has nothing >>whatsoever to do with Domain Name
> > > > > management.
> > > > > > > It is simply political deception used to persuade the >>ignorant
> to
> > > > > accept
> > > > > > > nationalization of that management.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Please show us where you get this information.  It may not be
> their
> > > > > > > >fault but it may welll be their creation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The story came from the Reuters wire service with a June 7,
> 2002,
> > > Cape
> > > > > Town,
> > > > > > > South Africa dateline. It was also covered on CNN.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > > > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > > > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html